USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
At least seven killed at Fort Hood
- Thread starter thebrain
- Start date
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
I wouldn't be too hard on the media for the various innacuracies that were put out there in the first couple of hours after the shooting. Sometimes in an event of this size, they get it wrong, not out of lack of professionalism, but because getting it wrong is an inevitable part of editing on the fly.
Those of you old enough to remember the assassination attempt on President Reagan might recall the problems the networks had with the question of whether press secretary Jim Brady was alive or dead. The late Frank Reynolds reported on ABC that Brady had died and subsequently showed the reaction of a crying white house staff as corroboration. Trouble was, they were reacting to the erroneous report, since they didn't have a source at the hospital. Reynolds exploded on air, angrily demanding that "we get this right."
In the hours after Bobby Kennedy was assasinated, there was a lot of blather about a "woman in a polka dot dress." There was such a woman, but she had zero to do with the murder.
I wouldn't be too hard on the media for the various innacuracies that were put out there in the first couple of hours after the shooting. Sometimes in an event of this size, they get it wrong, not out of lack of professionalism, but because getting it wrong is an inevitable part of editing on the fly.
Those of you old enough to remember the assassination attempt on President Reagan might recall the problems the networks had with the question of whether press secretary Jim Brady was alive or dead. The late Frank Reynolds reported on ABC that Brady had died and subsequently showed the reaction of a crying white house staff as corroboration. Trouble was, they were reacting to the erroneous report, since they didn't have a source at the hospital. Reynolds exploded on air, angrily demanding that "we get this right."
In the hours after Bobby Kennedy was assasinated, there was a lot of blather about a "woman in a polka dot dress." There was such a woman, but she had zero to do with the murder.
Last edited:
SPIN CONTROL
is in charge
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
I am thinking a good old fashioned drawn and quartering would be nice.
I am thinking a good old fashioned drawn and quartering would be nice.
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
Once victim is from St. Paul, Minnesota...
http://www.twincities.com/ci_13729626
Once victim is from St. Paul, Minnesota...
http://www.twincities.com/ci_13729626
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
It's possible by now that you have heard enough about what was on "Dr." Hasan's mind to conclude that his religion played a major role in his actions. We can probably agree that if he were being deployed to Norway or the Canal Zone, these shootings would not have occurred. We can further assume he wasn't motivated by concerns that we haven't ratified the Kyoto treaty or implemented universal health care.
His actions have already been condemned by various Muslim groups (what choice do they have?). The president is right in cautioning us to "wait until the facts are in," what choice does HE have? But the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusion: "Dr." Hasan's religious beliefs were pivotal in triggering this event. As I mentioned yesterday, this marks the second time a uniformed serviceman has murdered other g.i.'s in the name of his religion.
I generally try to chose my words carefully, which is why I refer to him as a Muslim psycho. Both of these men are Muslim psychos.
I read this morning there are over 3 thousand self identified Muslims on active duty, and you can imagine what they're going though as a result of "Dr." Hasan's act. Beyond examining the facts of the Hasan situation, to determine why he wasn't cashiered, DOD has the problem going forward of trying to prevent this from happening again, while respecting the rights of soldiers to worship as they please.
That's also the problem we face as a society. We should balance legitimate concerns about violence perpetrated in the name of Islam with respect for Muslims. I think we err too much on the side of looking the other way; we just don't want to smear the vast majority of Muslims, who don't countenance these acts, with the violence. IMHO that puts us in a position of ignoring the gorilla in the living room.
Again today I haven't seen or heard any references to Sgt. Akbar and his murderous rampage. Why not? The contours of these two crimes are similar in the relevant details. Are we not hearing about Sgt. Akbar because the legacy media don't want us to draw the wrong conclusions about Muslims? Well, how about letting us draw our own conclusions.
Remember a few years ago when a neo Nazi nutball named Buford Furrow shot up a jewish day care center in LA? Nobody had any problems identifying
Furrow as a neo Nazi nutball (nor should they have). There was no naval gazing about how we need to remind ourselves that not all neo Nazi nutballs are capable of violence. That being a neo Nazi nutball is protected by the First Amendment, etc. etc. We just called this t**d what he was.
On the other hand, also in LA, a Muslim psycho went to LAX and shot some people to death at the El Al counter. Immediately we were cautioned that this wasn't a terrorist attack, that we shouldn't draw conclusions about Muslims, blah blah blah. Right, this jihadi azzhole goes to the airport, walks past thousands of passengers and employees, and just happens to shoot some Jews. Nothing to see here, this isn't a terrorist act, everybody just move along.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ
It's possible by now that you have heard enough about what was on "Dr." Hasan's mind to conclude that his religion played a major role in his actions. We can probably agree that if he were being deployed to Norway or the Canal Zone, these shootings would not have occurred. We can further assume he wasn't motivated by concerns that we haven't ratified the Kyoto treaty or implemented universal health care.
His actions have already been condemned by various Muslim groups (what choice do they have?). The president is right in cautioning us to "wait until the facts are in," what choice does HE have? But the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusion: "Dr." Hasan's religious beliefs were pivotal in triggering this event. As I mentioned yesterday, this marks the second time a uniformed serviceman has murdered other g.i.'s in the name of his religion.
I generally try to chose my words carefully, which is why I refer to him as a Muslim psycho. Both of these men are Muslim psychos.
I read this morning there are over 3 thousand self identified Muslims on active duty, and you can imagine what they're going though as a result of "Dr." Hasan's act. Beyond examining the facts of the Hasan situation, to determine why he wasn't cashiered, DOD has the problem going forward of trying to prevent this from happening again, while respecting the rights of soldiers to worship as they please.
That's also the problem we face as a society. We should balance legitimate concerns about violence perpetrated in the name of Islam with respect for Muslims. I think we err too much on the side of looking the other way; we just don't want to smear the vast majority of Muslims, who don't countenance these acts, with the violence. IMHO that puts us in a position of ignoring the gorilla in the living room.
Again today I haven't seen or heard any references to Sgt. Akbar and his murderous rampage. Why not? The contours of these two crimes are similar in the relevant details. Are we not hearing about Sgt. Akbar because the legacy media don't want us to draw the wrong conclusions about Muslims? Well, how about letting us draw our own conclusions.
Remember a few years ago when a neo Nazi nutball named Buford Furrow shot up a jewish day care center in LA? Nobody had any problems identifying
Furrow as a neo Nazi nutball (nor should they have). There was no naval gazing about how we need to remind ourselves that not all neo Nazi nutballs are capable of violence. That being a neo Nazi nutball is protected by the First Amendment, etc. etc. We just called this t**d what he was.
On the other hand, also in LA, a Muslim psycho went to LAX and shot some people to death at the El Al counter. Immediately we were cautioned that this wasn't a terrorist attack, that we shouldn't draw conclusions about Muslims, blah blah blah. Right, this jihadi azzhole goes to the airport, walks past thousands of passengers and employees, and just happens to shoot some Jews. Nothing to see here, this isn't a terrorist act, everybody just move along.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
It's the first draft of history, we just need to remember it's subject to revision. People start to build elaborate theories based on a few scatter shot initial "facts" which more often than not turn out to be incomplete or even false.
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
21 year old Otsego, Minnesota, resident injured in the shooting was talking to her husband at the time...
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=827978&catid=391
21 year old Otsego, Minnesota, resident injured in the shooting was talking to her husband at the time...
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=827978&catid=391
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
Old Pio annecdote alert:
When the Titanic went down the major papers were all over the place in their coverage. There were reports that she was being towed into Halifax, the White Star Line even made arrangements for a special train to take relatives to Canada. All of the passengers had been transferred to other ships, etc. The Wall Street Journal embarrassed itself with a pompous article about how the safety features on the ship had prevented a tragedy. Not quite "Dewey defeats Truman," but in the ball game.
As much as any institution, the New York Times benefitted from the sinking. Editor Carr Van Anda analyzed the data (cryptic and conflicting wireless reports) and relying on his gut as much as anything else, concluded that the Titanic had gone down with huge loss of life. And that's what the paper reported in a special edition devoted almost entirely to the sinking. It turned out to be true, of course, and Van Anda's decision propelled the Times into a position of leadership among New York and American newspapers it has never relinquished.
You may now move around the cabin.
Old Pio annecdote alert:
When the Titanic went down the major papers were all over the place in their coverage. There were reports that she was being towed into Halifax, the White Star Line even made arrangements for a special train to take relatives to Canada. All of the passengers had been transferred to other ships, etc. The Wall Street Journal embarrassed itself with a pompous article about how the safety features on the ship had prevented a tragedy. Not quite "Dewey defeats Truman," but in the ball game.
As much as any institution, the New York Times benefitted from the sinking. Editor Carr Van Anda analyzed the data (cryptic and conflicting wireless reports) and relying on his gut as much as anything else, concluded that the Titanic had gone down with huge loss of life. And that's what the paper reported in a special edition devoted almost entirely to the sinking. It turned out to be true, of course, and Van Anda's decision propelled the Times into a position of leadership among New York and American newspapers it has never relinquished.
You may now move around the cabin.
Last edited:
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
In "dog years", right?
Yeah, I'll be 124 next year.
In "dog years", right?
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
Remember that deal in DC earlier this year where CNN hysterically reported a routine Coast Guard drill as a "possible terrorist incident?" They never apologized for it, instead tried to blame the CG for not notifying them or some other BS. However, it's useful to note how quickly they applied the word terrorist to that event. I'm guessing they haven't yet (and probably won't ever) apply it to this incident.
The media overreacting and racing to spew out inaccurate "information" without verifying it first? Say it ain't so, Joe.
Remember that deal in DC earlier this year where CNN hysterically reported a routine Coast Guard drill as a "possible terrorist incident?" They never apologized for it, instead tried to blame the CG for not notifying them or some other BS. However, it's useful to note how quickly they applied the word terrorist to that event. I'm guessing they haven't yet (and probably won't ever) apply it to this incident.
MadTownSioux
Fighting Sioux Hockey Fan
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
As we honor and grieve for the victims and their families we must ask ourselves why this man was still in the Army and why was he allowed to have contact with g.i.'s. Whether through inertia, political correctness, incompetence or some combination thereof, a dangerous psychotic was allowed to roam around in the heart of our Army.
We have thousands of Muslims serving honorably in our uniformed services, some have been wounded and some have lost their lives in defense of their country. And it's in our and their best interests to identify and separate the "Dr." Hasans and Sgt. Akbar's from them.
On a personal note, my late father served as a chest surgeon in the Army. And he proudly wore the caduceus device on his uniform. It offends me to the core of my being when I see "Dr." Hasan wearing that same device on his uniform. It puts me in mind of the scene in the old Emile Zola picture where Captain Dreyfus is drummed out of the French army, as one by one the devices and insignia are ripped from his uniform.
Dreyfus, of course, was the victim of anti-Semitism and ultimatelly restored to his rank and position. "Dr." Hasan is the victim only of a demented ideology which informed his actions. If I were president, I would order him to undergo the same humiliation as Captain Dreyfus--on his way to the gallows.
A firing squad is way too good for this monster.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
As we honor and grieve for the victims and their families we must ask ourselves why this man was still in the Army and why was he allowed to have contact with g.i.'s. Whether through inertia, political correctness, incompetence or some combination thereof, a dangerous psychotic was allowed to roam around in the heart of our Army.
We have thousands of Muslims serving honorably in our uniformed services, some have been wounded and some have lost their lives in defense of their country. And it's in our and their best interests to identify and separate the "Dr." Hasans and Sgt. Akbar's from them.
On a personal note, my late father served as a chest surgeon in the Army. And he proudly wore the caduceus device on his uniform. It offends me to the core of my being when I see "Dr." Hasan wearing that same device on his uniform. It puts me in mind of the scene in the old Emile Zola picture where Captain Dreyfus is drummed out of the French army, as one by one the devices and insignia are ripped from his uniform.
Dreyfus, of course, was the victim of anti-Semitism and ultimatelly restored to his rank and position. "Dr." Hasan is the victim only of a demented ideology which informed his actions. If I were president, I would order him to undergo the same humiliation as Captain Dreyfus--on his way to the gallows.
A firing squad is way too good for this monster.
Last edited:
leswp1
New member
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
They had a vet on this morning who used to be a drill sgt and is Muslim. He was an interesting interview. He had not been impressed with the 'Dr'
They had a vet on this morning who used to be a drill sgt and is Muslim. He was an interesting interview. He had not been impressed with the 'Dr'
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obamas_delayed_empathy_over_fo.html
I've avoided any comment about the president's response to Fort Hood up 'til now because I didn't think it was appropriate and because I always thought his predecessor got a bit of a raw deal for his response to Katrina (I'm talking about personal not governmental).
I just watched his statement again and it really was off putting. Why on earth he didn't lead off with a statement about the shootings instead of dumping it in after nearly three minutes of b.s. is anybody's guess. And his comments were entirely too self-referential, but we've all become accustomed to that. This isn't a huge mistake, and doesn't necessarily reflect some major presidential flaw, but it was a mistake.
Ask yourselves if Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would have responded this way.
No chance.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/obamas_delayed_empathy_over_fo.html
I've avoided any comment about the president's response to Fort Hood up 'til now because I didn't think it was appropriate and because I always thought his predecessor got a bit of a raw deal for his response to Katrina (I'm talking about personal not governmental).
I just watched his statement again and it really was off putting. Why on earth he didn't lead off with a statement about the shootings instead of dumping it in after nearly three minutes of b.s. is anybody's guess. And his comments were entirely too self-referential, but we've all become accustomed to that. This isn't a huge mistake, and doesn't necessarily reflect some major presidential flaw, but it was a mistake.
Ask yourselves if Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton would have responded this way.
No chance.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
I can pretty much guarantee that everything Obama says for the next three (or seven) years is going to be off-putting to you. You're hearing what you want to hear. Every time Dubya opened his yap I heard nothing but smugness and stupidity. Ears are as biased as eyes.
I can pretty much guarantee that everything Obama says for the next three (or seven) years is going to be off-putting to you. You're hearing what you want to hear. Every time Dubya opened his yap I heard nothing but smugness and stupidity. Ears are as biased as eyes.
huskyfan
New member
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
not to mention he mixed up the Medal of Honor with the Medal of Freedom ...
not to mention he mixed up the Medal of Honor with the Medal of Freedom ...
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
Cranky? Defensive? Can we assume that any, and I do mean any, criticism of BO, no matter how trifling, will be met with the obligatory reference to W? Aren't you all getting a little tired of the A-men chorus singing "Bush was worse---It's Bush's fault" all the time? You'd think once in a while you and other BO defenders woud be able to do so on the merits, rather than in comparison to the "stupid" and "smug" Bush. On the other hand, I'm betting old stupid and smug would know the difference between a medal of freedom and a medal of honor.
,
Cranky? Defensive? Can we assume that any, and I do mean any, criticism of BO, no matter how trifling, will be met with the obligatory reference to W? Aren't you all getting a little tired of the A-men chorus singing "Bush was worse---It's Bush's fault" all the time? You'd think once in a while you and other BO defenders woud be able to do so on the merits, rather than in comparison to the "stupid" and "smug" Bush. On the other hand, I'm betting old stupid and smug would know the difference between a medal of freedom and a medal of honor.
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: At least seven killed at Fort Hood
Not at all, I'm not the one out of power.
When you get to the point of deconstructing every nuance, pause and expression to find further proof of The Great Conspiracy, you're into fantasyland. The guy's not going to do or say anything that you won't find some way to fault. We all do it, fine, but don't pretend it's real.
And that reference to Bush? It was to admit I do the same thing -- in fact exactly the opposite of what you took it for (an attack on you). So you proved the point far better than anything else I can write.
Not at all, I'm not the one out of power.
When you get to the point of deconstructing every nuance, pause and expression to find further proof of The Great Conspiracy, you're into fantasyland. The guy's not going to do or say anything that you won't find some way to fault. We all do it, fine, but don't pretend it's real.
And that reference to Bush? It was to admit I do the same thing -- in fact exactly the opposite of what you took it for (an attack on you). So you proved the point far better than anything else I can write.